Here it is the eve of the fourth Thursday of November: let the fabrications and prevarications respecting American history commence. Being inquisitive regarding the pestilential endeavors of the maniacal and delusional side of the political spectrum, I adventured over to, a Mephistophelian asylum quartering a league of veracity challenged and axiomatically insolvent ideologues. While perusing for intellectually stimulating scholarship, I happened upon an article by Hrafnkell Haraldsson titled A Happy Thanksgiving to You. When not filling the pages of politicsusa, Mr. Haraldsson is the proprietor of the blog A Heathens’ Day.

The article labored under the weight of out of context quotes and lexical three-card Monte with fragments of history impaired by vague and uncorroborated commentary regarding the origins of the American Thanksgiving.

Here, history must intrude on what we all think we know. According to James W. Baker, Senior Historian at Plimoth Plantation:

The reason that we have so many myths associated with Thanksgiving is that it is an invented tradition. It doesn’t originate in any one event. It is based on the New England puritan Thanksgiving, which is a religious Thanksgiving, and the traditional harvest celebrations of England and New England and maybe other ideas like commemorating the pilgrims. All of these have been gathered together and transformed into something different from the original parts. The author presumptuously used the above autonomous quote–which is devoid of context, attributed to James Baker, Senior Historian at Plimoth Plantation, to debilitate and estrange the event at Plymouth in November 1621 between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag as the foundation of the American Thanksgiving.

The author presumptuously used the above autonomous quote–which is devoid of context, attributed to James Baker, Senior Historian at Plimoth Plantation, to debilitate and estrange the event at Plymouth in November 1621 between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag as the foundation of the American Thanksgiving.

In contrast to the author’s declaration that “history must intrude on what we all think we know,” the quote by James Baker, which is not linked to a broader document for context, James Baker’s book Thanksgiving: The Biography of an American Holiday contradicts the quote used by the author and proclaims that the November of 1621 event at Plymouth between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag was the conception of the American Thanksgiving. The meaning of the quote, in the broader context of Baker’s book, clarifies what happened at the first Thanksgiving and how the details of the Puritan Thanksgiving celebration noted in Edward Winslow’s letter dated 1621 was lost until the 1840s when a copy was found. The relevant quote from Baker’s book:

Despite disagreements over the details, such as whether the Pilgrims or the Wampanoag Indians deserve the greater honor for the event, or if turkey was on the original bill of fare, the universal consensus is that the mythical Plymouth event was the historical birth of the American Thanksgiving holiday.

This is our primary source of information on the event, in Mourt’s Relation, – A Relation or Journal of the Beginning and Proceedings of the English Plantation Settled at Plimoth in New England, London: 1622) by Edward Winslow and William Bradford:

Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

A Relation or Journal of the Beginning and Proceedings of the English Plantation Settled at Plimoth in New England, or as it is commonly known, Mourt’s Relation, is not the primary source. The truncated quote is from Edward Winslow’s letter dated December 12, 1621, which was published in Mourt’s Relation in full, and is the primary source:

Our corn did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

As so often happens, time conflates events and in 1841, in reprinting Mourt’s Relation, Alexander Young misidentified the 1621 feast as the “first Thanksgiving, and in 1846, Sarah Josepha Hale repeated his mistake in a magazine she published. And here we are.

Much to the chagrin of the author and politicsusa, time did not conflate events and Alexander Young, an antiquarian, did not “reprint” Mourt’s Relation. Mourt’s Relation was republished by Young after being adrift in the ether for a couple of centuries in his Chronicles of the Pilgrims Fathers of the Colony of Plymouth from 1602 to 1625 in 1841 after a copy of the original was found in Philadelphia in the year 1820. Until the discovery in 1820, the prevailing remnant Mourt’s Relation was the Massachusetts Historical Society’s reprinting of Samuel Puchas’s Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes of 1625. This adaptation of events did not include Winslow’s letter, thus the broader context of Baker’s quote. Young included a copy of the full text of Winslow’s letter dated December 12, 1621 in his book, which reintroduced the forgotten events of the first Thanksgiving. Young noted in his book the similarities of the practice of Thanksgiving in 1841 with Winslow’s description in 1621 of how the first Thanksgiving was celebrated. Young’s footnote to Winslow’s letter:

This was the first Thanksgiving, the harvest festival of New England. On this occasion they no doubt feasted on the wild turkey as well as venison.

Young presumably used Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation to corroborate the “wild turkey” at the feast.

They begane now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fitte up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strenght, and had all things in good plenty; for as some were thus imployed in affairs abroad, others were excersised in fishing, aboute codd, and bass, and other fish, of which they tooke good store, of which every family had their portion. All the sommer ther was no wante. And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter aproached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, etc. Besids they had aboute a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since harvest, Indean coree tb that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports.

The author offers a one-sentence statement regarding Sarah Josepha Hale, devoid of context or affirmation, and leaves the reader with this vague and unqualified statement regarding Sarah Josepha Hale: “Sarah Josepha Hale repeated this mistake in a magazine she published.”

The author borrowed a concept from H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine: “There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along it.” Sarah Josepha Hale started her campaign to make Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1827. Hale did not have a copy of the events of the first Thanksgiving as there was not a copy of Winslow’s letter until Young’s Chronicles of the Pilgrims Fathers of the Colony of Plymouth from 1602 to 1625 in 1841. Barring mastering the space-time continuum, the author’s math is off by fourteen years, which illustrates the necessity of the absence of an explanation for the statement regarding Hale. If any single individual can be singled out for the existence of the national celebration of Thanksgiving as we know it, Sarah Josepha Hale is that individual.

Sarah Josepha Hale edited the magazine Godey’s Lady Book. Hale started a campaign to have Thanksgiving reinstated as a holiday as was the tradition of Washington, Adams, and Monroe. Hale started her campaign for Thanksgiving being nationally recognized holiday in 1827; she started petitioning U.S. presidents in 1849. Hale started with Zachary Taylor, and she continued with Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and finally Abraham Lincoln. She also petitioned the governors of the states and territories. By the time Hale penned her letter to Lincoln, thirty states and two U.S. territories recognized Thanksgiving as a holiday. Hales’ persistence consummated with her letter to Lincoln in 1863 and Lincoln’s Thanksgiving proclamation of designating the last Thursday of November as a day of Thanksgiving: “…observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens,” which has been honored by every President since:

Philadelphia, Sept. 28th 1863.


Permit me, as Editress of the “Lady’s Book”, to request a few minutes of your precious time, while laying before you a subject of deep interest to myself and — as I trust — even to the President of our Republic, of some importance. This subject is to have the day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival.
You may have observed that, for some years past, there has been an increasing interest felt in our land to have the Thanksgiving held on the same day, in all the States; it now needs National recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become permanently, an American custom and institution.

Enclosed are three papers (being printed these are easily read) which will make the idea and its progress clear and show also the popularity of the plan. For the last fifteen years I have set forth this idea in the “Lady’s Book”, and placed the papers before the Governors of all the States and Territories — also I have sent these to our Ministers abroad, and our Missionaries to the heathen — and commanders in the Navy. From the recipients I have received, uniformly the most kind approval. Two of these letters, one from Governor (now General) Banks and one from Governor Morgan are enclosed; both gentlemen as you will see, have nobly aided to bring about the desired Thanksgiving Union. But I find there are obstacles not possible to be overcome without legislative aid — that each State should, by statute, make it obligatory on the Governor to appoint the last Thursday of November, annually, as Thanksgiving Day; — or, as this way would require years to be realized, it has occurred to me that a proclamation from the President of the United States would be the best, surest and most fitting method of National appointment.

I have written to my friend, Hon. Wm. H. Seward, and requested him to confer with President Lincoln on this subject. As the President of the United States has the power of appointments for the District of Columbia and the Territories; also for the Army and Navy and all American citizens abroad who claim protection from the U. S. Flag — could he not, with right as well as duty, issue his proclamation for a Day of National Thanksgiving for all the above classes of persons? And would it not be fitting and patriotic for him to appeal to the Governors of all the States, inviting and commending these to unite in issuing proclamations for the last Thursday in November as the Day of Thanksgiving for the people of each State? Thus the great Union Festival of America would be established.

Now the purpose of this letter is to entreat President Lincoln to put forth his Proclamation, appointing the last Thursday in November (which falls this year on the 26th) as the National Thanksgiving for all those classes of people who are under the National Government particularly, and commending this Union Thanksgiving to each State Executive: thus, by the noble example and action of the President of the United States, the permanency and unity of our Great American Festival of Thanksgiving would be forever secured. An immediate proclamation would be necessary, so as to reach all the States in season for State appointments, also to anticipate the early appointments by Governors.

Excuse the liberty I have taken

With profound respect Yrs truly Sarah Josepha Hale,

Editress of the “Ladys Book”

Perhaps the author was referring to this editorial written by Hale in November of 1865 in Godey’s Lady Book, which was not only forty years after Hale started her campaign, but Hale’s campaign preceded the republishing of Winslow’s letter by fourteen years, and Hale’s editorial is true to the history regarding the beginning of the American Thanksgiving custom and holiday:

Hitherto the observance of the day has been circumscribed. To the Eastern colonies we must look for the beginning of this custom. The Pilgrim Fathers incorporated a yearly Thanksgiving day among the moral influences they sent over the New World. After our Independence the light crept slowly onward and westward… yet still it blessed and beautified the homes it reached, thus suggesting its shine out together and make joy and thanksgiving throughout United America. It would be like a new revelation of dayspring from on high. And now the time and day are come.

Thus our own ideal of AMERICAN THANKSGIVING FESTIVAL will be realized, as we described it in 1860. The 30th of November 1865, will bring the consummation. ‘On that DAY our citizens, whether in their own pleasant homes, or in the distant regions of Oriental despotism, will observe it – on board every ship where our flag floats there will be a day of gladness . . . and in our Great Republic, from the St. John’s to the Rio Grande, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, all our people, as one Brotherhood, will rejoice together, and give thanks to God for our National, State and Family blessings.

These weren’t our Thanksgivings. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who, in 1939 and at the behest of the National Retail Dry Goods Association, made Thanksgiving an official holiday on the fourth Thursday of November of every year. Ironically, capitalist Republicans hated the idea and called it “Franksgiving” (coined by Atlantic City mayor Thomas D. Taggart, Jr.).

The author seems to have an antagonistic relationship with twentieth-century history as well.
Franklin Roosevelt did not make Thanksgiving an official holiday on the fourth Thursday of November. In 1939, the last Thursday of November fell on the last day of the month, which shortened the shopping season. Roosevelt issued a Presidential Proclamation moving Thanksgiving to the second to last Thursday in November. The following year, the next to last Thursday in November fell on the third Thursday of November, thus making Thanksgiving on the third Thursday in 1940. The move met with exuberant resistance as sixteen states refused to acknowledge Roosevelt’s decree and continued to celebrate the last Thursday of November as had been the custom since Lincoln. The move caused chaos with calendars, scheduled school days, planned vacations, and scheduled sporting events such as football games. All of which were forced to be rescheduled in the states that recognized Roosevelt’s Thanksgiving.

Roosevelt’s volte-face regarding Thanksgiving was such an unmitigated disaster that Roosevelt urged Congress revert the holiday back to the original date created by Lincoln.

After two years of confusion and and wandering the Thanksgiving wilderness, on October 6, 1941, the House of Representatives pass a joint resolution moving Thanksgiving back to the last Thursday in November. The Senate amended the resolution to the fourth Thursday in November. The two houses agreed, and Roosevelt signed the bill into law on December 26, 1941.

So today we have an official holiday melded onto a misremembered event from two centuries before and a religious festival conflated with a harvest festival. Both, ultimately, driven by capitalism.

So today, as happens each year around the fourth Thursday of November, there are myriad articles bandied about pregnant with misrepresentations and distortions of American history attempting to incite the aberration of the American Thanksgiving holiday.

What is the point of a liberal fantasy regarding American history without a denouement attacking capitalism? If the author knew American history, he would be keenly aware of Governor Bradford’s implementation of the socialist system of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” that played out like a precursor to Karl Marx’ Critique of the Gotha Program. After nearly starving to death under the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” system, Bradford made a hasty retreat to capitalism for the sake of survival.


No, the Logan Act was not Violated by the Letter to Iran.

The Logan Act was intended to apply only to private citizens and was a politically motivated act antagonistic towards Jefferson and Madison’s Republican Party.

To ascertain the motivation behind the Logan Act, the motivation for the Aliens and Sedition Acts of 1798 by Adams and the Federalists must be examined. These acts, under the guise of French infiltration, were intended, and in execution, aimed to silence the Republican party of Jefferson and Madison. The prosecutions were used exclusively against Republicans by Federalist prosecutors and judges, with the primary focus on Republican congressmen and newspaper editors who spoke against the Federalists. The anticipated result was to ensure that Adams was re-elected by defeating Jefferson in 1800.

With an understanding of the motivation and application of the Aliens and Sedition Acts, the relationship of the Aliens and Sedition Acts and their progression culminating with the Logan Act, only then can the diabolical political motivation for the acts by Adams can be understood.

Adam’s explicit motivation for the act was to target George Logan and the Republicans. In a letter from Adams to the Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, dated November 2, 1787, Adams manifested his intent:

The object of Logan, in his embassy, seems to have been to do or obtain something which might give opportunity for the “true American character to blaze forth in the approaching elections.” Is this constitutional for a party of opposition to send embassies to foreign nations to obtain their interference in elections?

George Logan was a Republican and a very influential and vocal critic of Federalist’s policies. He was a member of the Société française des amis de la liberté et de l’égalité. On the opposite end of the political spectrum were Jacobinism and Hamiltonism. Logan was a close associate of Citizen Genêt. Logan traveled to France with a letter from Jefferson vouching for his credentials. Marquis de Lafayette was instrumental in getting Logan to France. The result was that Logan, as a private citizen, prevented war with the French and was subsequently hailed as a hero. It would be intellectually dishonest to declare that had Logan been a private citizen or a U.S. Congressman who was as influential and outspoken regarding supporting Federalist policies that Adams and the Federalist would not only have never considered the Logan Act, but would have used Logan as an integral part of the election of 1800.

Adams made clear that the Logan Act would target private citizens by delineating between a private citizen and an agent of the government in a letter to the Senate on December 12, 1798:

Although the officious interference of individuals without public character or authority is not entitled to any credit, yet it deserves to be considered whether that temerity and impertinence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States, whether by their secret correspondence or otherwise, and intended to impose upon the people and separate them from their Government, ought not to be inquired into and corrected.

The definition and understanding of the phrase “public character” in 1798 was the government or the state.
The language and focus during the debates within the Congress was directed at private citizens. A few examples of the debates delineating the difference between a private citizen and the government:

Robert Goodloe Harper:

The principle once admitted must go to the utter subversion of government—the principle being that whenever an individual, or, by stronger reason, a number of individuals, conceive themselves wiser than the Government, more able to discern or more willing to pursue, the interest of the country, they may assume its functions, counteract its views, and interfere in its most important operations.

John Rutledge, Jr.:

…that in all well-constituted Governments it is a fundamental principle that the Government should possess exclusively the power of carrying on foreign relations.

Jonathan Brace:

The bill proposes to punish any person who shall interfere in any controversy to dispute between the Government and any of these foreign Governments. Indeed, this is part of our defense which is above all others necessary, as it will defend us against foreign intrigue, against what has already brought upon this country great calamities and involved many others in irretrievable ruin. This crime is, of all others, of the deepest dye. The evil of an offense of this kind is that it involves a whole nation and puts at hazard everything we hold dear.

The language in the Logan Act created two classes of actionable crimes:

(1)Those performed by United States citizens wherever resident or abiding; (2) those performed by a person resident in the United States, whether alien or citizen.

(1) The actions forbidden to United States citizens are:
(a) Without the permission or authority of the Government;
(b) Directly or indirectly;
(c) To commence or carry on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof,

All contemporary dictionaries and the common usage of the phrase “carry on” meant “to promote, advance, or help forward.”

Even though the letter that the forty-seven Senators sent to Iran on March 9, 2015, was imprudent and inappropriate, it did not violate the Logan Act. Moreover, as demonstrated above, the difference between a private citizen, the government, and the government’s authority in the Logan Act was defined.

Regarding the basis of the letter, the Constitution explicitly defines the President’s binding treaty power, and it is only through the advice and consent of the Senate that a self-executing treaty, which does not violate any provision in the Constitution, can have the force of law through the supremacy clause. Considering that the Iran agreement is an executive agreement created and approved solely by the executive branch, it cannot have the force of law nor can it be judicially enforced. This concept outside of the intent of the treaty clause of Article VI, was judicially established in Marshall’s opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2Pet. 253, 315 (1829). Foster was also used by Roberts in Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008):

This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that—while they constitute international law commitments—do not by themselves function as binding federal law. The distinction was well explained by Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2Pet. 253, 315 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Percheman, 7Pet. 51 (1833), which held that a treaty is “equivalent to an act of the legislature,” and hence self-executing, when it “operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision.” Foster, supra, at 314. When, in contrast, “[treaty] stipulations are not self-executing they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect.” Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888). In sum, while treaties “may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.” Igarta-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C. J.).

To further acquit the forty-seven Senators of violating the Logan Act, the perfunctory use of textualism will suffice. The one-off non-reciprocated letter to Iran by the forty-seven Senators becomes problematic for violating the Logan Act with the word “correspondence.” The definition and common usage of the word “correspondence” in 1798 was “mutual commerce, reciprocal, acting in return to the other.” The absence of exchanges between Iran and the forty-seven Senators eliminates the furtherance of the issue regarding a violation of the Logan Act and ends with the one-off letter sent by the Senators.

A cursory perusal of the Digest of United States Practice in International Law produced by the State Department regarding U.S. Senators George McGovern and John Sparkman and Cuba further defines the limits of the Logan Act:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states:“ I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States— that I had come to listen and learn….” (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.
Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.

The State Department addressed Nixon’s China visit as a private citizen and summarized the visit as not violating the Logan Act, but conclude that no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act:

It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to make determinations of whether criminal statutes of this sort have been transgressed and whether individuals should be prosecuted under them. However, the Department of State is unaware of any basis for believing that Mr. Nixon acted with the intent prohibited by the Logan Act. In this connection, it should be noted that no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.

In one of the few judicial rulings regarding the Logan Act, Waldron v. British Petroleum Co, the vagueness doctrine was applied regarding the terms “defeat” and “measures.” Under the vagueness doctrine, a criminal law must be explicit regarding what conduct is punishable under the law, and the Logan Act fails this test myriad times.

Waldron v. British Petroleum Co 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964):

Another infirmity in defendants’ claim that plaintiff violated the Logan Act is the existence of a doubtful question with regard to the constitutionality of that statute [Logan Act] under the Sixth Amendment. That doubt is engendered by the statute’s use of the vague and indefinite terms, “defeat” and “measures.” Neither of these words is an abstraction of common certainty or possesses a definite statutory or judicial definition. If you cannot define it, you cannot prosecute it: constitutionally vague.

Since, however, there are other grounds for disposing of this motion, it is not necessary to decide the constitutional question. Furthermore, any “ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity.”

The Court finds no merit in plaintiff’s argument that the Logan Act has been abrogated by desuetude. From the absence of reported cases, one may deduce that the statute has not been called into play because no factual situation requiring its invocation has been presented to the courts. Cf. Shakespeare, MEASURE FOR MEASURE, Act II, Scene ii (“The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.”)

It may, however, be appropriate for the Court (Canons of Judicial Ethics, Judicial Canon 23) to invite Congressional attention to the possible need for amendment of Title 18 U.S.C. § 953 to eliminate this problem by using more precise words than “defeat” and “measures” and, at the same time, using language paralleling that now in § 954.

In conclusion, the letter by the forty-seven Senators was foolish, but not criminal, as foolishness in of itself is not a criminal offense.

Independence Day

Here we are, July 4, 2013, two hundred and thirty-seven years from the day the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. On the first anniversary, July 4, 1777, in the nation’s capital of Philadelphia, prayers, parades, speeches, fireworks, and thirteen gun salutes were executed in celebration.


Seal Team Six: The Movie about Obama and the 2012 Election








The National Geographic Channel has teamed up with Harvey Weinstein, conservative-loathing filmmaker, to create a movie titled SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden. The purpose of the movie is to focus and highlight Obama’s role in the killing of Osama bin Laden. The movie is to air on the eve of the election, but Howard Owens National Geographic;’s CEO stated that they “weren’t considering the election, and there is no political inference or connection regarding the timing of its air-date.”


The Congressional Black Caucus and One Caucasian Female Dimwit Walk Out During Holder Contempt Vote

There are very few contemporary or historical organizations as racist as congressional race-based caucuses.


Memorial Day

Memorial Day is our national holiday to remember the men and women who died protecting this country in the service of the United States Armed Forces. If a member of the military died protecting this country, that member is a hero. In a society of the patriotic and the conscientious, Memorial Day would not be a day of division, politics, or ideological anomaly. This is a day set aside for this country to put divisions, politics, and ideological anomalies aside, and join together in reconciliation, if just for this one day, and pay tribute and honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their county: death. Memorial Day is a day about heroes, and those deserved of the title.


Harvard Law, the Commerce Clause, and the Obamacare Mandate

Harvard Law School Professor Einer Elhauge published an article in The New Republic titled, “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” The foundation of his argument is the belief that the Militia Act of 1792 was a mandate to purchase a firearm, and the 1790 and 1798 acts by Congress requiring that ship owners purchase medical insurance for seamen, was a mandate forcing the citizens of the states to make a commercial purchase under the Commerce Clause.


Texas Knitters Stitching Political Pink Uteruses Protesting Something or Other

While they are knitting uteruses and female nether regions, I am knitting dollars: but more on this subject later.


Why are They Continually Trying to Convince Me that Minorities are Incompetent and Lazy?

Why are they continually trying to convince me that minorities are incompetent, unable to perform the simplest of tasks that their Caucasian counterparts can, and just plain lazy? They have also convinced minorities that they are incapable of functioning, or navigating society and the various whatnots of existence without their chivalrous assistance, and the price is small–just their vote.


Barack Obama, Morality, the Constitution, and the Catholic Church

No provision of our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprise of the civil authority. –Thomas Jefferson


Next Page »